Validacija skale kozmopolitizma: empirijska verifikacija konceptualnog okvira kulturnoga kozmopolitizma

Abstract

In the broadest sense, cosmopolitanism can be described as a belief and action in accordance with the view that all human beings belong to a unique world political community. However, such a simplified definition overlooks the multidimensionality of the concept. The term cosmopolitanism has been present in public discourse since ancient times and has carried different connotations throughout history, which contributes to its ambiguity. The preconditions for the development of cosmopolitanism in its present sense arose in the mid-20th century, after the world wars and the onset of new globalisation processes. Within the social sciences, a significant interest in a more specific definition and conceptualisation of cosmopolitanism emerged in the second half of the 20th century. However, numerous theoretical discussions since then have not yet offered such a definition of the concept. An additional problem lies in the fact that those theoretical discussions, which defined multiple aspects and types of cosmopolitanism, are not accompanied by a corresponding number of empirical research. By considering previous theoretical and empirical research on the topic, this paper aims to offer a clearer conceptualisation and operationalisation of cosmopolitanism, with the focus on constructing a valid instrument for its measurement. While it is difficult to offer a clear and unambiguous theoretical definition of cosmopolitanism, most researchers have moved in the direction of a clearer definition of certain aspects of the concept. There were a few attempts of such conceptualisation that have been met with wider acclamation, some of which were more complex and some simpler. Vertovec and Cohen (2002) established the most sophisticated conceptualisation by defining cosmopolitanism as a sociocultural condition, a philosophy or worldview, a political project, an attitude or disposition, and a practice or competence. With the aim of capturing multiple aspects of the concept, Boucher, Aubert and de Latour (2019) defined four types of cosmopolitanism: moral, institutional, civil and cultural. Furthermore, Delanty (2009) offered a different approach by distinguishing moral, political and cultural cosmopolitanism. The various definitions agree, however, on including the political and the cultural aspects of cosmopolitanism. Therefore, this paper is based on the robust typology offered by Hannerz (2006), which distinguishes between the cultural and political faces of cosmopolitanism. The author sees the political face of the concept as the one that tries to solve macro problems of human, economic, legal, environmental and other processes that transcend nation-state borders. Hannerz (2006) defines the cultural face as an identity characteristic of individuals who enjoy new cultures, people, tastes, sounds and the like. The cultural dimension of cosmopolitanism, which arises from the awareness and practices of individuals, is the focus of this research. It is important to mention that numerous researchers define certain types (banal, patriotic, thin, ordinary) of cosmopolitanism. However, it is questionable to what extent the determination of such types contributes to a clearer understanding of the concept, especially when they are defined solely on the basis of theoretical considerations. Before establishing the framework for the empirical research, it was important to clarify the source of contemporary cosmopolitanism. Most researchers link cosmopolitanism to globalisation processes. Beck and Sznaider (2010) explain globalisation as processes that take place “out there” in the world and define cosmopolitanism as “globalization from within”, a process that is closely related to globalisation but takes place within society. Such a connection becomes questionable when the terms glocalisation, which includes micro as well as macro processes, and segmented globalisation, which refers to the different dynamics by which globalisation occurs in places around the world, are introduced into the discourse. These concepts also suggest that all individuals involved in globalisation trends will express cosmopolitan views, which is not the case. On the other hand, Roudometof (2005) emphasises the link between cosmopolitanism and transnationalism, a view that is elaborated in this paper. The author defines the concept of transnationalism as a social condition that arises in the stage of internal globalisation and is not influenced by the emotions and attitudes of individuals but its most important feature is that it can stimulate individuals to develop an open attitude, that is, cosmopolitanism, or a defensive attitude towards differences. The lack of a clear theoretical definition of cosmopolitanism has influenced the disproportion between the theoretical considerations and empirical research of the concept. One part of the researchers used secondary data to examine attitudes about cosmopolitanism in a certain population. These studies have led to important insights, but they have not contributed to the creation of a valid and reliable instrument for measuring cosmopolitanism. Another problem with such research is that it is conducted using data that are focused on examining other concepts. One such example is the study by Olofsson and Öhman (2007), where the authors interpreted views contrary to nationalism as cosmopolitan views. The other part of empirical research on the subject of cosmopolitanism is focused on constructing an instrument for its measurement. While most such studies were conducted to explore a particular aspect of the concept, Saran and Kalliny (2012) offered an instrument to measure general cosmopolitan attitudes, values, and practices within a particular population. The authors first conducted interviews, the results of which were used to construct questions for the survey. After collecting survey data, the authors defined a valid and reliable, one-dimensional 14-item scale of cosmopolitanism by conducting exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The findings of other authors pointed to the connection between cosmopolitanism and other concepts like transnational experiences, political orientation, and sociodemographic characteristics. The empirical part of this research aimed to define a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the presence of cosmopolitanism in a given population. For this purpose, the scale offered by Saran and Kalliny (2012) was used in a slightly modified form to further test its construct validity, reliability and applicability. The instrument was tested on the student population of the University of Zadar via an online survey in October 2020. In addition to the cosmopolitanism scale, the questionnaire contained questions about the number of countries the respondents had visited, the number of foreign languages they spoke, their political orientation, their support for general human rights and certain sociodemographic characteristics, with the purpose of testing the convergent validity of the instrument. In order to determine the metrics of the cosmopolitanism scale, bivariate (correlation analysis) and multivariate statistical procedures (exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis) were conducted in the statistical programming language R. First, exploratory factor analysis was performed on the cosmopolitanism scale with parallel analysis as a factor retention method, which extracted one 13-item factor with a high level of reliability (α=0.93). To examine the construct validity of the scale, confirmatory factor analysis was further performed, resulting in an acceptable goodness-of-fit. In order to define a scale that shows even better psychometric properties, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on a reduced 6-item scale that Saran and Kalliny (2012) found to show stronger construct validity. Following their results, the 6-item scale showed even better goodness-of-fit (χ²=25, df=9, SRMR=0.05, RMSEA=0.09, CFI=0.95, TLI=0.91), and its factor scores were used in further analyses. Correlation analysis was used to measure the relationship between the cosmopolitanism scale and transnational experiences and political views. It was found that respondents who express stronger cosmopolitan views speak more foreign languages, have visited a greater number of foreign countries, express stronger support for leftwing political options, and a stronger need to protect universal human rights, of which the latter correlation proved to be the highest. Lastly, multiple regression was conducted, where the cosmopolitanism scale factor scores served as the dependent variable and sociodemographic variables as predictors. The regression model confirmed the previous finding that women express stronger cosmopolitan attitudes than men. The results of the statistical analysis indicate a high level of reliability and validity of the reduced 6-item cosmopolitanism scale. On that basis, it can be stated that the scale serves as a valid instrument for measuring cosmopolitan attitudes within a population. The scope of the study is limited because it was conducted on a relatively homogeneous sample of the University of Zadar student population. In future research, the 6-item scale should be tested on a more heterogeneous sample which could indicate the applicability of the instrument to a wider population. Besides, in future research, it would be advisable to pay more attention to examining indicators and constructs related to cosmopolitanism, based on which clearer types of cosmopolitan could potentially be defined.